Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I seriously don't get why Mao keeps coming up. Latent Cold War brainwashing is my guess. Sheer ignorance could also be the reason. They aren't mutually exclusive explanations, however.

He probably caused more deaths than anyone who has ever lived.

There is a thin line between oversimplification and misunderstanding. But it's not so thin that I didn't notice how far you just crossed it.

Then explain my mistake to me.

How about suggesting some reading instead, as I have neither the desire nor the capacity to post an introductory course on twentieth-century Chinese history? Try reading Philp Short's biography (for balance) or even Jung Chang's awful book (for scathing, ahistorical criticism). Short's book is a good enough starting point, I think.

AND NOW





Pretty much.

Manchu wrote:How about suggesting some reading instead, as I have neither the desire nor the capacity to post an introductory course on twentieth-century Chinese history? Try reading Philp Short's biography (for balance) or even Jung Chang's awful book (for scathing, ahistorical criticism). Short's book is a good enough starting point, I think.

I don't even know what it is you're contesting. Do you not think he has caused the deaths of more people than anyone who has ever lived? Do you not think this is sufficient to make him the most evil person in history? I'm not going to go to the fething library and read two biographies on Chairman Mao's life when you can't even be bothered to type out what it is you're trying to say.

Pol Pot seems like the best (or is it worst candidate of the century).

As noted Mao's body count is grossly inflated by the famines.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Manchu wrote:How about suggesting some reading instead, as I have neither the desire nor the capacity to post an introductory course on twentieth-century Chinese history? Try reading Philp Short's biography (for balance) or even Jung Chang's awful book (for scathing, ahistorical criticism). Short's book is a good enough starting point, I think.

I don't even know what it is you're contesting. Do you not think he has caused the deaths of more people than anyone who has ever lived? Do you not think this is sufficient to make him the most evil person in history? I'm not going to go to the fething library and read two biographies on Chairman Mao's life when you can't even be bothered to type out what it is you're trying to say.

Oh I thought this was quite clear.

I posted that I didn't understand why people in this thread consider Mao evil.

You replied that he caused the deaths of more people than any other person. (Not assuming that you say he is evil, just that this is why you think other people think so.)

I responded to the effect of Mao causing so many deaths is not merely an oversimplification but actually a misunderstanding.

So clearly, I object to the ideas that (1) Mao is evil and (2) Mao caused so many deaths.

But in responding to you more particularly, after you asked that your mistake be corrected, I was objecting particularly to the idea that Mao caused so many deaths.

Could you tell me what wasn't clear about any of that?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Do you not think he has caused the deaths of more people than anyone who has ever lived?

I think the point is the level of Mao's direct involvement is debatable. I mean, one could make the argument that Gavrilo Princip is responsible for the deaths of millions of people...

...was that his intention? 'No', is the short answer.

'Probably not' is the slightly longer one.

Manchu wrote:Oh I thought this was quite clear.

It wasn't, evidently.

I posted that I didn't understand why people in this thread consider Mao evil.

You replied that he caused the deaths of more people than any other person. (Not assuming that you say he is evil, just that this is why you think other people think so

I responded to the effect of Mao causing so many deaths is not merely an oversimplification but actually a misunderstanding..)

This would have been good to mention. For all I knew you were declaring that I misunderstood the concept of evil.

In that case, do you reject the idea that under Mao approximately 30-40 million people died (or whatever number puts him above Stalin, presumably)? Or do you simply think he wasn't to blame for many of the deaths that happened at the time?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I think the point is the level of Mao's direct involvement is debatable. I mean, one could make the argument that Gavrilo Princip is responsible for the deaths of millions of people...

...was that his intention? 'No', is the short answer.

'Probably not' is the slightly longer one.

I don't think it can be argued that Mao intended to kill as many as Stalin. Probably not as many Hitler.

As I see it though, there is still a significant gap in between having tried to do something and having made a mistake that can be merely dismiss as such.

It's the difference between murder and excusable homicide. There is still manslaughter.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Manchu wrote:Oh I thought this was quite clear.

It wasn't, evidently.

Then be impertinent with yourself rather than me as it was your misunderstanding rather than my misrepresentation.

This would have been good to mention. For all I knew you were declaring that I misunderstood the concept of evil.

This is silly. You can reread the posts and understand how this would be jumping to conclusions not supported by my posts for yourself.

In that case, do you reject the idea that under Mao approximately 30-40 million people died? Or do you simply think he wasn't to blame for many of the deaths that happened at the time?

And this is the conversation that I wanted to avoid. The number of people who died during the Great Leap Forward is approximately 30 million. No objection. Understanding to what extent, or in what sense, Mao is responsible for this is something that requires quite a lot of context. In my view, he did not "cause" these deaths any more than George W. Bush "caused" the current global financial crisis. (To be clear, Bush did NOT cause it and I'm not going to get into that argument with anyone, either.) In any case, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Chinese history knows that the point of the Great Leap Forward was NOT to kill people--unlike the Holocaust, although Mao is on a lot of "evil lists" behind and even sometimes above Hitler.

Manchu wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Manchu wrote:Oh I thought this was quite clear.

It wasn't, evidently.

Then be impertinent with yourself rather than me as it was your misunderstanding rather than my misrepresentation.

This would have been good to mention. For all I knew you were declaring that I misunderstood the concept of evil.

This is silly. You can reread the posts and understand how this would be jumping to conclusions not supported by my posts for yourself.

Your posts consisted of "I seriously don't get why Mao keeps coming up. Latent Cold War brainwashing is my guess. Sheer ignorance could also be the reason. They aren't mutually exclusive explanations, however.", "There is a thin line between oversimplification and misunderstanding. But it's not so thin that I didn't notice how far you just crossed it.", and "How about suggesting some reading instead, as I have neither the desire nor the capacity to post an introductory course on twentieth-century Chinese history?"

None of these are making any attempt to state what it is your problem is. It's just you being - frankly - kind of pissy and self-aggrandizing. Also, I wasn't willing to jump to any conclusions, that's why I was asking for clarification as to what you were saying. Seriously, what is your problem? You've been nothing but hostile.

In that case, do you reject the idea that under Mao approximately 30-40 million people died? Or do you simply think he wasn't to blame for many of the deaths that happened at the time?

And this is the conversation that I wanted to avoid. The number of people who died during the Great Leap Forward is approximately 30 million. No objection. Understanding to what extent, or in what sense, Mao is responsible for this is something that requires quite a lot of context. In my view, he did not "cause" these deaths any more than George W. Bush "caused" the current global financial crisis. (To be clear, Bush did NOT cause it and I'm not going to get into that argument with anyone, either.)

If you wanted to avoid a conversation about Chairman Mao's responsibility for the deaths during the Great Leap Forward why did you decide to call people who considered The Great Leap Forward his responsibility brainwashed idiots?

There are many, many historians who blame Mao for the deaths incurred during the Great Leap Forward. The forced abolishment of private plots of land, The Great Sparrow Campaign, exporting grain during famine to maintain national image, refusing the help of engineers in the construction of irrigation equipment, the pig iron fiasco; there was a lot on his hands. There were moderates in the party opposing the extent to which Mao pursued his policies, but he largely ignored them. He was obviously screwed over by his subordinates making up numbers, but he was mostly responsible for having set up the system that led to such a breakdown of information. I would call him negligent. Too blinded by pride and ideology to fulfil the responsbilities he had forcibly assumed.

In any case, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Chinese history knows that the point of the Great Leap Forward was NOT to kill people--unlike the Holocaust, although Mao is on a lot of "evil lists" behind and even sometimes above Hitler.

Agreed. (Although Stalin did engineer famines to kill people, according to many sources.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:None of these are making any attempt to state what it is your problem is.

This is simply wrong. My very first post makes it very clear what my problem is: Mao should not be considered one of history's most evil people. The fact that so many do consider him to be so indicates to me that people are either prejudiced against him as a Communist leader or they simply don't know much about Chinese history. You clearly understood that when you posted that he probably caused more people to die than any other historical figure. My next post referred to what was wrong with that: it is such an overblown and ahistorical comment that it cannot be simply attributed to oversimplification and is actually a misunderstanding. To which you required explanation. The explanation would have required far more work than it was worth, IMO, and you would get a better understanding of it by reading credible--or even incredible--printed sources than from this thread EVEN (I admitted) in a post written by myself (so much for self-aggrandizing, but I can't blame you for the urge to read tones into posts as we are all guilty).

If you wanted to avoid a conversation about Chairman Mao's responsibility for the deaths during the Great Leap Forward why did you decide to call people who considered The Great Leap Forward his responsibility brainwashed idiots?

When someone states that there are no such things as atoms and you reply that there is no good reason to say so, you are not thereby obliging yourself to hold forth on physics for as long as the idiot in question still refuses to be reasonable.

There are many, many historians who blame Mao for the deaths incurred during the Great Leap Forward. The forced abolishment of private plots of land, The Great Sparrow Campaign, exporting grain during famine to maintain national image, refusing the help of engineers in the construction of irrigation equipment, the pig iron fiasco; there was a lot on his hands. There were moderates in the party opposing the extent to which Mao pursued his policies, but he largely ignored them. He was obviously screwed over by his subordinates making up numbers, but he was mostly responsible for having set up the system that led to such a breakdown of information. I would call him negligent. Too blinded by pride and ideology to fulfil the responsbilities he had forcibly assumed.

This paragraph seems to me to be attributing to the most visible party the inadequacies of all parties involved. This is a constant pitfall of journalistic-style history, especially when there are stark ideological motives at play. Mao bears responsibility for failed policies that he supported insofar as he supported them. Translating as much into responsibility for the deaths of millions of people is not so easy a step. Hence my suggestion of actual sources, including an extremely critical one.

(Although Stalin did engineer famines to kill people, according to many sources.)

No argument on that point.

Its an endless argument, both of you see him from a different perspective, so you won't agree.

Manchu wrote:This is simply wrong. My very first post makes it very clear what my problem is: Mao should not be considered one of history's most evil people. The fact that so many do consider him to be so indicates to me that people are either prejudiced against him as a Communist leader or they simply don't know much about Chinese history.

To me saying "I seriously don't get why Mao keeps coming up" implied not only that you disagree with him having been chosen as the most evil person in history, but that you don't see him as a valid enough choice to warrant his discussion at all.

You clearly understood that when you posted that he probably caused more people to die than any other historical figure. My next post referred to what was wrong with that: it is such an overblown and ahistorical comment that it cannot be simply attributed to oversimplification and is actually a misunderstanding.

It would have been nice for to have actually referenced my comment, rather than simply state that I had "crossed the line into misunderstanding".

To which you required explanation. The explanation would have required far more work than it was worth, IMO, and you would get a better understanding of it by reading credible--or even incredible--printed sources than from this thread EVEN (I admitted) in a post written by myself (so much for self-aggrandizing, but I can't blame you for the urge to read tones into posts as we are all guilty).

Fair enough.

When someone states that there are no such things as atoms and you reply that there is no good reason to say so, you are not thereby obliging yourself to hold forth on physics for as long as the idiot in question still refuses to be reasonable.

Don't pretend your views on this matter are supported to anywhere near that degree. When someone states a widely-held opinion and you reply that they must brainwashed or ignorant you sure as hell are obliging yourself to defend this viewpoint.

This paragraph seems to me to be attributing to the most visible party the inadequacies of all parties involved. This is a constant pitfall of journalistic-style history, especially when there are stark ideological motives at play. Mao bears responsibility for failed policies that he supported insofar as he supported them. Translating as much into responsibility for the deaths of millions of people is not so easy a step. Hence my suggestion of actual sources, including an extremely critical one.

I would say that in assuming control of the party - eagerly, and with the brutal murders of those who opposed his position or questioned his decisions - he also assumed responsibility for overseeing the actions of the party, beyond what actions of the party were led by him personally. But any case, I would say that his personal support for decisions to kill off sparrows, create useless lumps of iron, export grain during famine, and most importantly kill or jail those who were willing to provide him with necessary feedback were huge factors in the famine's deadliness. While haven't read either of the books you cited, my knowledge of the subject does come from other books on the subject. I'm not just making things up for my entertainment.

(Also, I assume you consider Stalin to have caused more deaths than anyone in history rather than Mao, correct?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:

Its an endless argument, both of you see him from a different perspective, so you won't agree.

That isn't very contributive.

Orkeosaurus wrote:To me saying "I seriously don't get why Mao keeps coming up" implied not only that you disagree with him having been chosen as the most evil person in history, but that you don't see him as a valid enough choice to warrant his discussion at all.

This is true and not in controversy so far as I understand.

Don't pretend your views on this matter are supported to anywhere near that degree. When someone states a widely-held opinion and you reply that they must brainwashed or ignorant you sure as hell are obliging yourself to defend this viewpoint.

An opinion's validity, thank goodness, has nothing to do with how many people espouse it. But, to take your point here for granted, let us consider the one-liner: "He probably caused more deaths than anyone who has ever lived." As Albatross helpfully pointed out hours ago, and as I have reiterated ever since, the problem with that statement has to do with the meaning of the word "caused." Granted, you have since then felt obliged to extrapolate: killing birds and backyard steel mills were bad ideas that Mao, who was in charge, thought were good ideas. And I've already responded to this: (1) it's a tad more complicated than "Mao was in charge of making people pursue these bad ideas," (2) I don't want to explain to you just how complicated it is nor do I feel like I am even up to that task so (3) here are some references to books by people who have tried to do just that.

While haven't read either of the books you cited, my knowledge of the subject does come from other books on the subject. I'm not just making things up for my entertainment.

I've never known you to behave this way nor would I expect you to do so. But, given the contents of your posts, I am not convinced that the books you read were very comprehensive.

(Also, I assume you consider Stalin to have caused more deaths than anyone in history rather than Mao, correct?)

I dunno. My degree is in Chinese history rather than Russian history.

Mohamed Farrah Aidid

David Koresh

Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre

just a few....

Let me add that I don't have a vote for most evil person in history. I think it's kind of a sham topic. All the same, I get what people are doing here and in that light I disagree that Mao should be considered.

Manchu wrote:An opinion's validity, thank goodness, has nothing to do with how many people espouse it.

The burden of proof shifts, though. If I say "the earth orbits around the sun" in 500 AD and then refuse to back it up, no one's going to take be seriously, and I'll have wasted their time.

But, to take your point here for granted, let us consider the one-liner: "He probably caused more deaths than anyone who has ever lived." As Albatross helpfully pointed out hours ago, and as I have reiterated ever since, the problem with that statement has to do with the meaning of the word "caused." Granted, you have since then felt obliged to extrapolate: killing birds and backyard steel mills were bad ideas that Mao, who was in charge, thought were good ideas. And I've already responded to this: (1) it's a tad more complicated than "Mao was in charge of making people pursue these bad ideas," (2) I don't want to explain to you just how complicated it is nor do I feel like I am even up to that task so (3) here are some references to books by people who have tried to do just that.

I find it odd that your criticism of my comment is now that "it's a tad more complicated" than what I said, when you had prior declared that the problem with my statement was not that it was an oversimplification, but a complete misunderstanding of the subject.

I've never known you to behave this way nor would I expect you to do so. But, given the contents of your posts, I am not convinced that the books you read were very comprehensive.

I've only read parts of them, and what I read didn't deal particularly in-depth with Mao's personal relation to the rest of the party and the actual decisions of policy.

I dunno. My degree is in Chinese history rather than Russian history.

But surely you must believe someone to have caused more deaths than Mao.

Let me add that I don't have a vote for most evil person in history. I think it's kind of a sham topic. All the same, I get what people are doing here and in that light I disagree that Mao should be considered.

While I wouldn't count him out of consideration, I think it's a hard argument to make. There's simply not enough malice from him to be comparable to Hitler and Stalin. I have to agree pretty much with what sebster said on the issue; declaring someone a monster because of the result of their agricultural policy is a bit extreme, especially when placed against (more severe) mass murderers.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I find it odd that your criticism of my comment is now that "it's a tad more complicated" than what I said, when you had prior declared that the problem with my statement was not that it was an oversimplification, but a complete misunderstanding of the subject.

The language was intended to be conciliatory. I find the understanding of causation implied by your original statement so limited as to be useless.

But surely you must believe someone to have caused more deaths than Mao.

Sure, in the sense that I believe that someone has eaten more walnuts than me. Based upon the same level of understanding that motivates someone to claim Mao caused more deaths than any other historical figure, I might claim that actually Stalin caused more deaths than Mao. But I won't. Because that level of understanding does not strike me as a sound position from which to make such startling claims.

Manchu wrote:The language was intended to be conciliatory. I find the understanding of causation implied by your original statement so limited as to be useless.

Regardless of the accuracy of this opinion, what you're saying is still a claim of oversimplification, not a claim of misunderstanding.

Sure, in the sense that I believe that someone has eaten more walnuts than me.

Not at all comparable, and you know it.

Based upon the same level of understanding that motivates someone to claim Mao caused more deaths than any other historical figure, I might claim that actually Stalin caused more deaths than Mao. But I won't. Because that level of understanding does not strike me as a sound position from which to make such startling claims.

It sounds to me like you don't actually have any idea whether I'm wrong or right.

Orkeosaurus wrote:It sounds to me like you don't actually have any idea whether I'm wrong or right.

It's worse. I have no idea what you are talking about at all.

Frazzled wrote:As noted, I said EVIL, not top evil. An agreed that puts him in footing of dozens of other dictators in the 20th century. The 20th Century reeked in that regard (but was probably better than the 19th or 18th and so forth).

Yeah, I know you said evil, which is why I was agreeing with your post for the most part. I was then pointing out the thread asks for most evil, and was expanding on the point in that context.

And yeah, Saddam is just another in the long line of tyrants you see in history.

smiling Assassin wrote:Can we differentiate between "evil" and "stupid"?

I would hesitate to call Hitler evil. He was a traumatised man, who wanted to do the best for his country & people. He wanted the Jews out - he didn't neccesarily want to kill them.

You have to consider that picking the Jews wasn’t just an honest mistake that anyone could have made. It requires a ridiculously strong selection bias to conclude an ethnic minority is secretly destroying the countryYou really have to look at why the error was made, and when people have so make desire to scapegoatpeople make errors of that typeBlaming Jews (and gypsies and socialists and all the rest) for the problems of Germany was

And the idea that Hitler didn’t necessarily want to kill the Jews is one of those things that people take at face value, but to their peril. Yes, there were all sorts of pie in the sky plans for alternative way to get the Jews out of Germany, but the sad fact is that whenever a minority is scapegoated it ends horribly. It just isn’t an excuse to say ‘well, they didn’t always plan to systematically murder them all’ when that’s how it was always going to end up.

You also have to look beyond just the slaughter of the Jews, and into the slaughter committed against the people of Eastern Europe. Anyone who read Mein Kampf would have known exactly what was going to happen when Hitler advanced east.

, would Oliver Cromwell and the Crusader Kings not be similarly evil?

They were also quite evil.

If you want to extrapolate xenophobic and anti-semitic people as evil, look at the rest of western society during this period. Churchill was a fervent anti-semite, Roosevelt's government did nothing to shift the old anti-semitic upper-class that existed in the USA. France, even, wasn't very fond of Jews.

Yes, there was a lot of racism at the time, and that should always be remembered. There’s an idea that people would have done more if they knew what was happening to the Jews and other minorities in the lead up to the war, but anyone who cared to know was well aware of what was shaping up. But people just didn’t care enough to really find out what was happening.

None of which excuses Hitler and the Nazis for building death camps to wipe out whole races of people. None of which excuses the mass slaughter of civilians across Eastern Europe.

samrtk wrote:There's no such thing as evil. It's just your opinion on what they have done, or do. Stop throwing evil around like it's fact. =P

I don’t believe in objective evil, but then nothing really has any objective meaning if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts of it. Words do have agreed meanings though, and I think evil is sufficiently understood to include the slaughter of innocents for personal pleasure, or as a result of racist worldviews.

smiling Assassin wrote:However Nazi policy never followed a path of elimination on a mass scale until ~1941.

The peaks of the purges follow closely to the major defeats suffered by the Nazis on the Eastern Front. Faced with the collapse of their grand vision of the conquest Russia, they took it out on the Jews. Getting beat in a fair fight and taking out your frustration on a helpless third party is pretty damn evil in my book.

Not trying to turn this away from the topic, but it was easy to make 4 out of the 2's of Jews and Communism, and that was a widely accepted strategy during this period. (Churchill called for the international elimination of Bolshevism and linked it to the Jews in the same breath)

Churchill was also a racist pratt, that’s true. Churchill never actually put anyone into a forced labour camp though. Nor did ever decide to consolidate power by executing the left wing of his party. Nor did he create a false terrorist act to consolidate power and begin the persecution of political opponents.

Do you see where I’m going with that?

And Frazz: I got my words mixed up. I would call him the murderer of 6,000,000 Jews, I would not call him an evil man.

Just think about that paragraph, dude. Just read what you’ve written and think about it for a bit.

Just in the same way that when a crusader's country invades the Middle East during the Middle Ages, and the men have God as their cause and on their side, they are not evil men even though they slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents.

No, that’s evil too. Simply believing in something wrong doesn’t make you above moral judgement, when the processes used to reach that belief are so horrible.

smiling Assassin wrote:People who slaughter millions to try and better their country and their civilisation, I don't see as 'evil'. I see it as ignorant, despicable, ridiculous, and horrifying. Not root-down plain bloodthirsty evil.

Think about how they thought their way into believing that some random group needs to be slaughtered. There was no rational, intellectual movement that just happened to make the honest mistake that the Jews were to blame. Fascism is a power fantasy about the strong nation, and about the hard men that are needed to control the strong nation. It revels in ‘tough choices’ that are almost universally cruelty for the sake of cruelty. It is psychopathy turned into national politics.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Then explain my mistake to me.

I’ve pointed out the error about four times in this thread. Simply looking at total bodycounts is simplistic, because the biggest death tolls belong to countries with large populations who had bad agricultural policy. The Great Leap Forward was bad policy (ideological and incredibly stupid) and it killed tens of millions. But it wasn’t undertaken with the intent of killing those people. They actually intended to help those people, it’s just that unfortunately they were stupid policies.

If we follow that line of thought, the second most evil regime becomes the British Empire, as their agricultural policies in India killed around 20 million at the turn of the century. Their policies of free trade were also ideological and incredibly stupid, but they also weren’t done with the intent to kill those people. They were actually intended to help those people, it’s just that unfortunately they were stupid policies.

Mao always makes these lists, but the British Empire never does. Why is that?

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't even know what it is you're contesting. Do you not think he has caused the deaths of more people than anyone who has ever lived?

If you consider total deaths the best indicator, then the most evil people in history become those with bad agricultural policy plus Hitler, which would be a crap list.

Manchu wrote:It's worse. I have no idea what you are talking about at all.

If you don't know how many deaths have been caused by anyone besides Mao, how can you know that Mao isn't first? There are a lot of factors to look at with Mao's decisions, but there are for Hitler and Stalin too. By the best estimates I've seen Mao is still on top (for deaths, not murders).

sebster wrote:I’ve pointed out the error about four times in this thread. Simply looking at total bodycounts is simplistic, because the biggest death tolls belong to countries with large populations who had bad agricultural policy. The Great Leap Forward was bad policy (ideological and incredibly stupid) and it killed tens of millions. But it wasn’t undertaken with the intent of killing those people. They actually intended to help those people, it’s just that unfortunately they were stupid policies.

If you consider total deaths the best indicator, then the most evil people in history become those with bad agricultural policy plus Hitler, which would be a crap list.

Sebster, I've been agreeing with you. I'm just saying that if you do count bodies, Mao is in first place, and given that he also did kill a great deal of people intentionally it shouldn't be surprising that he receives mention in this type of thread.

Manchu doesn't think he can be assigned the highest bodycount in any case, and so should never have been brought up.

Odd, no one has mentioned Emperor Hirihito. Anyone who lets his people get nuked twice over pride is up there in my book.

focusedfire wrote:Odd, no one has mentioned Emperor Hirihito. Anyone who lets his people get nuked twice over pride is up there in my book.

Squig Herder actually mentioned him pretty shortly in. (More concerning Japanese war crimes though.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:Sebster, I've been agreeing with you. I'm just saying that if you do count bodies, Mao is in first place, and given that he also did kill a great deal of people intentionally it shouldn't be surprising that he receives mention in this type of thread.

Manchu doesn't think he can be assigned the highest bodycount in any case, and so should never have been brought up.

Reading back over the thread I think I see how that's what you've been arguing. You probably could have been a bit clearer in that first post.

Anyway, no harm, no foul.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

focusedfire wrote:Odd, no one has mentioned Emperor Hirihito. Anyone who lets his people get nuked twice over pride is up there in my book.

The issue there is assuming Hirohito was actually running the show and was not just a figurehead.

smiling Assassin wrote:Just in the same way that when a crusader's country invades the Middle East during the Middle Ages, and the men have God as their cause and on their side, they are not evil men even though they slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents.

Well since this is grossly simplified and almost wildly inaccurate, your point is invalid...

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well since this is grossly simplified and almost wildly inaccurate, your point is invalid...

I took it as a hypothetical, not actually a comment on the Crusaders. Then I started to hope everyone took it as a hypothetical, because we just don't need to add a debate on the crusades to this mess.

So can we can just take it as a hypothetical? I think there's more than enough grounds for debate in 'Hitler wasn't evil'.